ethnicity, gender differences and authority-exercising ... · journal of education & social...

Journal of Education & Social Policy Vol. 4, No. 2, June 2017

133

Ethnicity, Gender Differences and Authority-Exercising Styles in Juvenile

Correctional Institutions

Yaakov Reuven Kinneret College Sea of Galillee

Zemach, Israel, 15132

Sarah Ben-David Bar-Ilan University

Israel

Abstract

Culture-, ethnicity- and gender-based variance plays major role in perceptions and positions regarding the education, treatment and shaping of behavior of deviant juveniles. This research examined variables that predict the way Educational Instructors (EI) will perceive the inmates under their care, and the effect that this perception will have on the authority-exercising styles during disciplinary-encounters. Results showed that ethnicity and gender of the EI contributed to their inmates’ perception and authority-exercising style: Arab EI have a higher tendency for a blaming perception of inmates and for using power assertion and withdrawal styles in disciplinary-encounters. Male EI responded more with withdrawal-type intervention and less by providing induction, though no gender differences were found in perception of inmates. The findings highlight the importance of and need for an EI support system that focuses on cultural sensitivity, and for a balanced representation of male and female figures in these institutions.

Keywords: Multi-Culturalism, Educational Instructors, Therapeutic Educational Climate, Disciplinary Encounters, Therapeutic Environments, Pressure and Stress Situation

1. Theoretical Background

This research was initiated out of curiosity that was piqued after being exposed to the differences in authority-exercising styles of Educational Instructors (EI),in institutes for juvenile offenders and youth in social deviance situations (Reuven, 2015). The EI in these institutions are paraprofessional welfare workers, usually lacking any professional training. Moreover, the authority-exercising styles are usually connected to the EIspersonal traits, and the characteristics of their work environment. These instructors play an important role in institutions, and thus it was important to look for the variables that can have an effect on the differences in their authority-exercising style. This research focuses on the ethnic background of the instructors and their gender identity.

The focus on ethnicity stems from the fact that Israel is demographically varied, with a sector-based and multicultural populace (Yatziv, 1999). The population is divided into two main groups: Jews, who make up about 80% of the populace, and Arabs, who make up about 20% of it. Within the Jewish population, about 55% are Ashkenazi Jews, who have come from the countries of Europe and America; and about 45% are Sephardi Jews, who have come from the countries of Asia and Africa (Leshem, 2004). These social groups live side by side, and their codes of behavior and cultural values are not only different – sometimes they are opposite and contradictory to each other (Smooha, 1993). The hypothesis is that differences in these characteristics will be connected to positions vis-à-vis the inmates and to the type of authority that the EIs will exercise in the course of disciplinary encounters.

The focus on gender characteristics stems from the similarities one can find between the role of the EIs and of the parents. It is hypothesized that gender differences will also be connected to positions toward the inmates and the type of authority exercised in the course of disciplinary encounters.

www.jespnet.com enter for Promoting Ideas, USA © C 0790 (Online) -0782 (Print) 2375-ISSN 2375

134

This relies on psychodynamic and social theories that posit a gender-based differentiation between the father's and mother's roles in the development of children and the shaping of their behavior, in the interest of maintaining a patriarchal social order (Baron-Cohen, 2003).

1.1 The Research Field

The study was conducted in authoritarian institutions for court-ordered placement, under the auspices of the Authority for Youth Supervision in the Ministry of Welfare and Social Services. By law, young people aged 12-20 with criminal and deviant behaviors are referred to these institutions. Many of the adolescents, who were referred to these institutions for the purpose of beginning of treatment and creating an opportunity for change and rehabilitation, are in the midst of a functional and emotional crisis, and at maximal exposure to risk elements (Sesmelik, Smadja & Moyale, 2008). Referral to these institutions is done in accordance with two laws, which make it possible to intervene and impose treatment – Youth Law: Judgment, Punishment and Means of Treatment (1971) for youths who have been accused of criminal acts, and Youth Law: Treatment and Supervision (1961) for children and youth in need of protection (Ben-Baruch, Sinai & Sheinfeld, 2015). About 2,000 juveniles are treated annually in 57 institutions. These institutions operate along a spectrum of four spaces, from the locked space to the open space within the community. The four spaces are differentiated from each other in the length of the intervention, intensiveness and the degree of control and monitoring of the youths. There is also a program for intervention in crisis (Reuven,2015).

The institutions also differ from each other by gender and sector, and there are separate institutions for boys and girls, for Jews and Arabs, and for religious and secular inmates (Reuven, 2014). This reflects the perception that treatment should be in accordance with the values of the residents' culture of origin, in order to facilitate their integration into the original community. That is also why most of the staff in the institutions belongs to the cultural group from which the inmates come (Sesmeliket al, 2008).These are authoritarian institutions designed as a means of treatment, deterrence and punishment for dysfunctional youths (Mevorach, 2015). The therapeutic principle underlying the work includes maintaining boundaries, discipline and a regular daily routine, together with a warm and accepting atmosphere. To this end, the caregivers use behavioral tools based upon rewards for good behavior, and limitation of rights for negative behavior (Gur, 2008).

The EI are paraprofessional workers, lacking any professional training, and their authority-exercising authority is mostly associated with personality characteristics and their background. The present study focuses on the authoritarianism level as well as ethnic and religious level of these instructors. According to the literature, these variables seem to have an impact on everyday practice. An important characteristic of the Israeli society is its demographic and cultural diversity (Leshem, 2004). This diversity might have its impact on the behavior of the EIduring disciplinary encounters, EI exercise the authority granted to them for shaping inmates' behavior while setting clear boundaries. In most cases they cannot rely on a pre-defined response system and they are required to exercise their judgment and act on the basis of their event analysis, inmates' characteristics as well as models and educational concepts on which they have grown up (Suwaed&Nohad,2016). Perception of control and responses to different situations depends on people's personality and their cultural and social concepts. Consequently, it is to be hypothesized that authoritarianism level in EIs' personality, ethnicity (national and ethnic group) and level of religiosity will have an impact on the authority-exercising style during disciplinary encounters, similar to that of the parents: power assertion, withdrawal and induction.

1.2 The Educational Instructors (EIs)

The authority of the staff in these institutions is based on the institution’s legal authority. However, the fact that the inmates are referred to these institutions by court order, often creates frustration that is manifested by breaking of the rules, and confrontations with the authoritarian system and the staff members who represent it (Dirkzwager & Kruttschnitt, 2012). The EIs are part of the multi-disciplinary staff who mostly have professional positions and training. In contrast, the EIs lacks a professional definition or professional training, and the only formal requirements for the job are being 24 years old and completing 12 years of school (Reuven, 2014). Therefore, the EIs are defined as paraprofessional welfare workers, and their job description includes a wide area of responsibility. Grouper and Isikovich (2003) described the EIs as "youth workers in need of a moratorium" without willingness for a long-term commitment; young people who are searching for their future professional path and are seeking an opportunity for experiential learning, by using their intuitive abilities. Yet, their daily prolonged exposure to the inmates, the intense emotional proximity, and their involvement in the inmates' life make them very important figures for the youths (De Valk, Van der Helm, Beld, Schaftenaar, Kuiper


135

& Stams, 2015). As a rule, the instructors ‘role combines a large number of the parental care roles. Theso include the upbringing of the youngsters, assisting in the acquisition of confidence and self-esteem, together with the inmates' adjustment to the institution and the shaping of their behavior (Gottesman, 1980; Shalom, 1980).

The instructors' roles include also supervision and care for the inmates' daily needs – clothing, food, order and discipline (Shilansky, 1992); performing a daily routine in the institution – work, study, hours of going out and returning, sticking to proper rules of behavior, and more. In addition, when inmates break the rules, the EIs have to react by punishment, such as cancelling a vacation, denying phone call rights and even removing the inmates to a more strict institution.

1.3 The Inmates' Characteristics

There are two paths of referral to these institutions: youths who have been convicted of crimes, and youth who are in need of protection (Ben-Baruch et al., 2015).Therefore, they can be seen either as victims or as offenders. However both Israel's youth laws that are the legal basis for the referral of youth to correctional institutions indicate that the main task of these institutions is the rehabilitation of juveniles and not the punishment or deterrence (Mevorach, 2015). These two paths of referral though enable dual perception of the inmates: victims or offenders. The perception of aninmate’s a victim of neglect and abuse that may be the cause of the criminal activities, evokes compassion and the willingness to improve the current situation. On the other end, juveniles may be viewed as responsible for their situation, be it because they are perceived as criminals, or because of committing disciplinary violations in the institution. In these cases, the perception is that the juveniles deserve to suffer or be punished for their deviant behavior (Levy, 2007). In addition it is noteworthy that there was also a tendency to attribute guilt to the victims or to see them as responsible for being victimized, and for having a weak personality and an inability to change (Levy & Reuven, 2016).This tendency can have an impact on the inclination of these institution staff members, including the EIs, to attribute guilt to the inmates and perceive them as responsible for their situation, regardless whether the cause of referral to the institution was victim's protection or criminal activities. Apart from the inmates' features, the characteristics of the EIs, especially gender, ethnicity and cultural background have an impact on their perception of the inmates. This perception will be examined in accordance with the four attributes that were found to have an effect on the perception and blaming of victims: responsibility, criminality, weakness of personality, and inability to change. (Thornton, Hogate, Moris, Pinnete & Presby,1986).

1.4 Authority-Exercising Styles in Disciplinary Encounters

Authority-exercising is one of the duties of both educational instructors and parents alike (Cohen & Schneider, 1992).However there is a lacuna in the literature with regard to the EIs' authority-exercising. Since the role of the EIs and pf the parents seems to be similar, the present study uses a model found to be effective in the case of parents (Barber, Bolitho & Bartrand, 2001; Hoffman, 1975; Ritchie & Ritchie, 1983).

The term “disciplinary encounter” relates to the dynamics that takes place in an attempt to change an undesirable children's behavior. Findings illustrate that when these encounters are imbued with a clear emotional charge of affection and support for children's behavior, the latter feel protected and safe. However, when the encounters are punishment-oriented, they are accompanied by a strong sense of fear (Shiran, 2007). Hoffman (1975) presented a model that defined three intervention styles in disciplinary encounters: power assertion –including physical punishment and verbal threats; love withdrawal – expressing anger or disagreement with the children's behavior, e.g. turning one's back, withdrawal, refusal to talk, expressing lack of love and threatening to abandon them; and induction – induction and providing reasons for the request for changing the child's behavior. A classic example of this type of disciplinary encounters is pointing out the undesirable or harmful consequences of the behavior in order to motivate children to change their behavior. The first two styles include the exertion of force, and they involve fear resulting from threats or physical punishment. While it is true that the second approach (love withdrawal) does not involve use of physical force, it does comprise an expression of anger, and is considered to be punitive. In contrast, the induction approach is not a punitive one. Therefore, according to Hoffman (1975), this approach helps in understanding the circumstances, and the desired behavior.

In the course of disciplinary encounters, the EIs cannot rely on a pre-formulated set of responses (Schneider, 1992). Therefore, they have to rely on their personal observation and their perception of youth’s characteristics, as well as methods, models and strategies with which they have grown up (Shoham, Rahav & Adad, 2004).


136

In addition, according to Weiner’s theory (1995) of attribution embedded in cultural and social perception of the individual shape his tendency to judge the responsibility of others to a situation and his reaction. Thus, when people are perceived as unable to solve the situation and help themselves, a sense of empathy and a desire to help are evoked. On the other hand, when a people are perceived as responsible for their situation, no empathy or will to help are induced arises and the reaction toward them might be hostile.

1.5 Ethnic Differences in the Attitude towards Children

The demographic and ethnic differences that exist in Israel (nationality and intra-Jewish ethnicity, or 'eda') are not just statistical facts, but represent a sartorial socio-cultural pattern in this multicultural society (Yatziv, 1999). The term 'culture' has several meanings: it is the social heritage that the individual acquires from his group, the mechanism for determining the normative standard of the behavior, the way of thinking, the feeling, the belief, and the way in which individuals who belong to a certain cultural group behave (Yonah, 2005).

According to the literature, socio-demographic variables like the ethnic culture of origin affect the attitude toward children in general and toward abuse and neglect in particular (Goldstein & Laor, 2007). Every culture views raising and educating children differently, and there are inter-cultural differences in the definition of behavior perceived as harmful. The same behavior that is accepted as normative in one culture group could be seen as a deviation that contradicts the rules of society in another culture (Roahr, Steerauer & Leshem, 2004). Since its foundation, the State of Israel has adopted the universal approach of western society, whereby children's best interest principle makes up a central tenet, which sometimes even supersedes others (Mass, 1995). And yet, there are still significant differences between different cultural groups in Israel as far as children's education is concerned (Korbin, 1991; Maunter, 2008).

The literature differentiates between two central cultural attitudes: the collectivistic, which encourages growth and development through defined roles and commitments; and the individualistic, which encourages growth and development through implementation of personal choice (Calderon, 2000; Perry, 2007). The first approach, the collectivistic, is common mostly in non-western societies in which the way to social integration and self-fulfillment passes through developing an understanding about social duties and compliance with these duties, and the individual is subject to the authority of the collective. In children's upbringing process, of children, the emphasis is on obedience, commitment and sacrifice for the collective. Usually, values like honesty in the family, mutual commitment and conformity with the collective are rewarded and strengthened, personal expression is limited and sanctions on deviant behavior are harsh (Al-Hajj, 2003; Maunter, 2008). The second approach, the individualistic, is represented mainly by western society, which maintains that duties and commitments to society are obstructive to personal development and self-fulfillment (Al-Hajj, 2003; Smooha, 1993). In this culture, the EIs consider individuals as autonomous and distinct from the group, and individuals can belong to several groups at the same time, without having one of them defined as their complete identity or behavior (Perry, 2007). These are completely different approaches, and most likely they are going to have an effect on the upbringing of children and the shaping of their behavior. Kagitcibasi (1996) presents a more complex and sensitive structure than the two-dimensional divisions, a structure which expresses the linkage between culture, family structure, values and mutual relations in the family. The relationship between these three elements can be mutual dependence, no dependence and mutual emotional dependence. This structure may be suitable for examining culture groups in Israel, which undergo social change and simultaneously seek to preserve their cultural identity (Roahr-Strar & Rosenthal, 2004).

Israel is a democratic country with a strong western affinity on the one hand, but with numerous different cultural groups on the other. Therefore, these approaches could collide and create, among caregivers for exceptional populations, a gap between what is demanded and expected of them as representatives of society's values, and their own perceptions and personal opinions stemming from their cultural world. It can therefore be hypothesized that the cultural background from which the EIs come will the way they perceive the juveniles in the institution, and their pattern of behavior in exceptional incidents. This assumption is based on empirical findings in the literature, i.e. that Middle Eastern societies are less tolerant towards socially-challenged individuals and towards situations that deviate from their accepted norms (Al Hajj, 2003; Goldstein & Laor, 2007; Smooha, 1993). This could lead to negative perceptions, distance and lack of empathy, and in situations of stress – even to aggressive behavior toward the exceptional cases (Hazan, 2002).


137

1.6 Gender Differences in Attitude toward Children

Several authors have discussed the different roles of fathers and mothers in the development of children and the shaping of their behavior (Moss, 1990).Moreover, Freud described mothers as providing the children with the ability to contain and accept, and fathers as providing their sons with the rules and the ability to assimilate aggression in correlation with development and creativity. Both parents together and separately in their behavior as parents, should be models for the ability to contain aggression on the one hand, and to react with suitable aggression on the other. Children fear their fathers more than their mothers. While mothers accept the children unconditionally, the fathers' acceptance depends on the children's value-based behavior (Trowell & Etchegoyen, 2002).

Jung (in Pinsof, 2002) argued that mothers react to children according to the Eros principle, which is an emotional and instinctive one – a principle of containment. Fathers, on the other hand, represent the principle of logos that is described as rational, intellectual, active, objective and penetrating. Freud (in Trowell & Etchegoyen, 2002).- noted the importance of care and education by the two parental figures for the process of internalizing social demands and the adoption of values. Moreover, Jung (in Pins of, 2002) noted that the mother's figure evokes yearning, but also, in an unconscious way, aggression and the fear of being swallowed up. The father induces admiration and a will to emulate him, but also anger because he disconnects the child from the Garden of Eden of Eros (the relationship with the mother). One should note that we are talking about archetypes. Reality is more complex because both men and women carry mixed paternal and maternal archetypes.

Another approach, which is a social one, presents a feminist approach, according to which traditional paternal roles reflect a patriarchal order, which constructs gender roles so that parenting is central for mothers, and marginal for fathers. According to this approach, the male roles concentrate on life competences, setting boundaries and discipline, (Baron-Cohen, 2003). These traditional roles create a higher potential for confrontations between children and their fathers than with their mothers, in the process of shaping their behavior. According to Winnicot (1995), in institutions for juveniles there is a need for a father figure as represented by the EIsin order to set boundaries for the impulsive behavior of the anti-social juveniles, and to shape their behavior. The inmates look for a strict and strong father's figure through whom they will regain their ability to deal with guilt feelings as well as the ability to atone and rehabilitate. And yet, Winn cot stresses, although the symbolic father must be strict and strong, he must also be loving. According to the terminology of Kohout (1971), setting boundaries for the undesirable behavior of adolescents must be clear and unambiguous, yet empathetic. In other words – understanding and acceptance are needed. Both Winnicot (1995) and Kohout (1971) stress that only through external control and supervision by people capable of empathy, acceptance and containment, can the emotionally-damaged adolescents be brought to stability and sound functioning.

In fact, the authority-exercising style of the "induction" type presented by Hoffman (1975) his model, is based upon this approach. In this pattern of response, instructors set boundaries but also give reasons for their actions; they seek to change the juveniles' behavior by pointing at undesirable or harmful results of this behavior. The concept is to persuade the juveniles to change their behavior by their own choice, and to assume responsibility for and control over their actions. This approach can assist the residents in establishing a connection between cognitive understanding of the instructors' demand and internal resources for understanding the circumstances. But mostly, the stress is on a clear message of showing respect, acceptance and empathy for the adolescents in their situation.

1.7 Research hypothesis

Based upon the literature, it is hypothesized that ethnicity (nationality and intra-Jewish ethnicity / 'eda') and gender of the EIs will affect the way they perceive the inmates and the style of authority-exercising they will apply during disciplinary encounters. The first hypothesis is that among male Jewish EIs of Sephardi background and male Arab EIs, there will be more EIs who will tend to ascribe guilt to the inmates and perceive them as guilty of their situation, compared to female EIs and Ashkenazi instructors, who will tend to view the juveniles as victims of circumstances. The second hypothesis is that among male Jewish EIs of Sephardic background and Arab EIs, more EIs will employ power assertion and with drawling the disciplinary encounters, as compared to the female EIs and the Ashkenazi ones, who will use more induction-type authority.

2. Methodology

2.1 Research Participants


138

The study included 320 EI, who make up the total population of EIs in the institutions run by the Youth Protection Authority. Among them, 50 instructors did not return completed questionnaires as they were supposed to, and were therefore disqualified. Out of 270 EIs who took part in the study, 64.3% (n=173) were men and 35.7% (n=69) were women. Their ages ranged between 20 and 60, with the average age being 29.9 (standard deviation 6.7). As far as ethnicity is concerned, 50.5% (n=80) were Sephardi Jews, 21.4% (n=57) were Jews of mixed-ethnicity (both Ashkenazi and Sephardi) and 17.3% (n=52) were Arabs. Almost all the participants – 90.7% (n=244) – were born in Israel; most of them – 65.9% (n=178) – were single, and the majority – 75.2% (n=203) – had no children.

2.2 Research Design

The study was based on self-reporting by the participants, in line with the standards specified in principles 6.06 and 6.20 of the ethical principles list of the American Psychological Association regarding research with human –participants (maintaining privacy, making clear that participants had the right to leave the study at any time, conducting clarification talks etc.). The data were collected by questionnaires administered to the instructors in the different institutions. In order to maintain the participants' privacy, the questionnaires were handed over to an administrator/coordinator in an envelope containing a questionnaire for the EIs and another for the administrator/coordinator, and a removable label with the name of the instructors was placed on the envelope. The administrators/coordinators were asked to fill out their questionnaire about the participants and place it in the envelope. When the instructors filled out their questionnaire and returned it, the questionnaire was placed in the envelope, the envelope was sealed and the label with the instructors' name was removed and discarded.

2.3 Research tools

2.3.1A demographic questionnaire

A questionnaire regarding personal details, including demographic variables: gender, age, marital status, number of children, ethnic origin, nationality and country of birth.

2.3.2 Attribution of guilt to a Victim Questionnaire

A questionnaire attributing responsibility and guilt to the juvenile, "The Attribution of Guilt to a Victim" (Thornton et al., 1986) was specially customized for this research. To this end, four stories were written, describing a youth in a victimhood situation with the past background, as well as a youth in a criminal situation with past background. To these stories were added questions that examined attribution of guilt to behavior, and attribution of guilt against a background of the juvenile's character traits. The stories and questions were handed over for assessment to seven judges – two from academia, three EIs and two supervisors. Questions that were judged as inapt were removed. The questionnaire consisted of four categories: responsible, weak, criminal and unchangeable. In this questionnaire, the IEs were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with statements presented to them, from 1 – absolutely disagree, to 4, agree absolutely. In order to neutralize the effect of the order of the stories and their type (victim, transgressor), six versions were prepared with a different order of stories. The questionnaire was found to be reliable, the first category at α=.89, the second at α=.88, the third at α=.84 and the fourth at α=.84.

2.3.3 Instructors' authority in Disciplinary Events

A questionnaire relating to instructors' authority in a disciplinary event. For this purpose, a questionnaire (Block, 1975, translated by Eisikovits, (1980) was customized for examining disciplinary encounters between parents and children. The questionnaire was made up of 21 items that were divided into 3 categories: power assertion, withdrawal and induction. The tool that was constructed was identical to the original one except for the way the questions were represented. Here, the questions were addressed to the EIs instead of to the parents. For instance, instead of:"When your child annoys you sometimes, do you forbid him/her to leave the room?", the question here was: "When the inmate annoys you sometimes, do you forbid him/her to leave the room?"This questionnaire, too, was given to seven judges who examined and approved the correlation between the items and the purpose of the study.

In the questionnaire, the instructors are asked to assess and rank their responses to events in the course of disciplinary encounters on a 4-level scale. The questionnaire was found to be reliable: the power assertion α=.83, the withdrawal scale α= .84, and the induction scaleα= .82.


139

Because of the concern over the effect of social desirability and for the purpose of validating this questionnaire, a similar questionnaire was given to coordinators/administrators, who were asked to assess the style of intervention of each of the instructors under their supervision. This questionnaire was also identical to the original, except for the way in which the questions are worded. For instance, instead of:"When the inmate annoy you sometimes…", the question was:"When the inmate annoys the instructor…"

3. Findings

The findings (Table 1) show a significant and strong positive correlation between the style of intervention according to the instructors ' answers, and the style of intervention according to the assessment of the coordinators/administrators.

Table 1: Correlations Matrix between Results of Intervention Style According To Eis Assessment and

Results of Intervention Style According to Administrators/Coordinators.

Intervention style in discipline encounter

Instructors Administrators

Power assertion Instructors

- **724. **517 . **671. **608. **525 .- Love withdrawal - **-.630 **588. **665. **-.581

Induction - **-.454 **-.544 **588. Power assertion A

dmi

nistra

- **791. **-.639 Love withdrawal - **-.667

Induction -

In addition, inter-correlations between three styles of intervention were examined, with an exclusive focus on the instructors' results. The results point to a positive correlation, statistically significant and strong, between the tendency to respond with power assertion and the tendency to respond with withdrawal. In other words: the greater the tendency to respond with power assertion, the greater the tendency to respond with withdrawals. A negative correlation was found, statistically significant and of medium strength, between the tendency to respond with induction and the tendency to respond with withdrawals. In other words: the greater the tendency to respond with induction, the smaller the tendency to respond with withdrawal.

Table 2: Intervention Style during Disciplinary Encounters – Descriptive Statistics

Intervention style Mean S.D. Skewness Kurtosis Power assertion 2.24 0.59 599. -.037

Love withdrawal 1.92 0.64 990. 531. Induction 3.44 0.50 1.357 - 1.901

3.1 Differences according to Ethnicity

3.1.1 Perception of the Inmates

The differences in instructors' perception of the inmates in accordance with ethnicity were examined on a sample that answered questionnaires with two case descriptions (n=196). The examination was performed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with components in the perception of the inmate as dependent variables and ethnicity as an independent variable. The findings of the analysis (Table 3) showed a significant difference between perception of the inmates as responsible and weak according to ethnicity, but no difference was found in perception of the inmate as criminal or as unchangeable.

Table 3: Differences in the perception of the inmates according to ethnicity - one way analysis of variance (ANOVA)

df MSE F Perception of inmates as… 3,186 1.18 *3.13 Responsible for the situation 3,186 2.04 *4.33 Weak 3,186 1.06 2.58 Criminal 3,186 0.64 1.80 Inability to change

In terms of the source of the difference, a Scheffe- analysis indicated that in perceiving the inmate as responsible, a statistically significant difference was found only between instructors who defined themselves as both


140

Ashkenazi and Sephardi (mixed ethnicity), and Arab instructors, with the latter attributing greater responsibility to the inmate. No difference was found between Ashkenazi and Sephardi, between Ashkenazi and Arabs, between Ashkenazi and a mixed-ethnicity group, and between Sephardi and Arabs (Figure1).

3.1.2 Authority-Exercising Style

The differences in authority-exercising style during disciplinary encounters according to ethnicity were tested separately for each style of intervention, by one way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The findings of the analysis (Table 4) show a significant difference in the tendency to respond with power assertion and the tendency to respond with withdrawal according to ethnicity. No difference was found between instructors of different ethnicities in the tendency to respond with induction.

Table 4: Differences in Intervention Style during Disciplinary Encounters According to Ethnicity – Findings of One Way Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA)

df MSE F Intervention style 3,256 1.78 *5.27 Power assertion 3,256 4.87 *13.47 Love withdrawal 3,256 0.63 2.63 Induction

Regarding the tendency to respond with power assertion, a Scheffe analysis showed a statistically significant difference between Sephardi and Arab instructors, with the Arab instructors inclined more toward power assertion. No significant differences were found between EIs from other ethnicities. As for the tendency to respond with withdrawal, the findings (Scheffe) illustrated a significant difference between Ashkenazi and Arab EIs, with the Arabs tending more to respond with withdrawal. In addition, a significant difference was found in the tendency to respond with withdrawal between Sephardi and mixed-ethnicity EIs and between Sephardi and Arabs. Sephardi EIs were more inclined to respond with withdrawal than did mixed-ethnicity EIs. In addition, Arab EIswere more inclined than mixed-ethnicity EIs to respond with withdrawal. These differences, in effect, are the source of the variance, since no difference was found between Ashkenazi and Sephardi EIs or mixed-ethnicity ones, in the tendency to respond with withdrawal. Figure 2 shows differences between the ethnic groups' tendency to respond with power assertion and the tendency to respond with withdrawal.

Perception of inmate as responsible

Perception of the inmate as weak

Ashkenazi Jews 2.871.79

Sephardi Jews 2.822.02

All Jews 2.421.73

Arabs 2.932.22

2.87

1.79

2.822.02

2.42

1.73

2.932.22

Power assertionLove withdrawalAshkenazi Jews 2.181.8Sepharadi Jews 2.291.97All Jews 2.031.66Arabs 2.472.39

2.18

1.8

2.291.97

2.03

1.66

2.472.39


141

3.2 Gender differences

3.2.1 Perception of the inmates

Gender differences in the perception of the inmates were analyzed by t-testfor no-dependent samples. As Table 5 illustrates, no significant difference was found between the genders in all four components of perception of the inmate.

Table 5: Differences between Female and Male EIs' Perception of Inmates: Test Results

Gender Perceived as

Male Mean (SD)

Female Mean (SD)

Responsible 2.99 (.61) 2.89 (.61) t(193)=0.97

Weak personality 2.21 (.69) 2.09 (.72) t(193)=1.71

A criminal 2.01 (.67) 1.87 (.59) t(193)=1.54

Inability to change 1.78 (.61) 1.67 (.58) t(193)=1.28

3.2.2 Authority-exercising style

Gender differences in the authority-exercising style during disciplinary encounters were analyzed by t-testfor no-dependent samples. As Table 6 illustrates, a significant gender difference was found in the tendency to respond with withdrawal. Male EIs tended more than female IEs to respond with withdrawal. A significant gender difference was also found in the tendency to respond with induction. Female EIs tended more to respond with induction than did male EIs. No difference was found between male and female EIs' tendency to respond with power assertion.

Table 6: Differences between Female and Male Eis in Intervention Style During Disciplinary Encounters

Intervention style Male Female Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Power assertion )60 (.2.18 )59 (.2.27 t(266)= 1.18

Love withdrawal )61 (.1.76 )64 (.2.00 t(266)=3.04 *

Induction )50 (.3.18 )51 (.2.98 t(266)= 3.02*

*p<0.01

Discussion

This study deals with educational instructors (EIs) in juvenile correctional institutions Israel. In these institutions, the EIs are a meaningful figure for the inmates, most of whom have experienced difficulties of adjustment and deviant behavior. The study explores the way the EIs perceive the inmates in the institution as well as their authority-exercising styles during disciplinary encounters with them as these encounters have a strong impact on the rehabilitation process (Cohen & Schneider, 1992; Winn cot, 1995). Moreover, the study focuses on the EIs' ethnicity, gender differences stemming from the gender distribution of the Israeli population and the multicultural reference resulting from it regarding various issues (Perry, 2007; Yonah, 2005).

Regarding the EIs' ethnicity, several differences were found both in their perception of the inmates and their authority-exercising styles. Concerning the inmates' perception, a difference was indicated in the attribution of responsibility. Most of the difference in this component was illustrated between Jewish IEs with mixed ethnicity and Arab EIs. Jewish IEs of mixed ethnicity attributed to the inmates responsibility for their situation to lesser extent than did Arab EIs. Moreover, the findings showed a difference in the attribution of weakness. Ashkenazi and mixed-ethnicity Jewish EIs tended to ascribe weakness to the inmates to lesser degree than the Arab EIs. No differences were shown in the inmates' perception associated with the attribution of delinquency and the attribution of inability to change. As far as authority-exercising styles were concerned, the Arab EIs were inclined


142

to respond with power assertion and withdrawal during disciplinary encounters more than their Sephardi Jewish peers.

The Sephardi Jewish EIs tended to respond with withdrawal to greater extent than Ashkenazi Jewish EIs. No difference in the induction style was found between the EIs. These findings illustrated that the main differences between the EIs on the basis of their ethnicity were related to the differentiation between Jews and Arabs in Israel. The findings are in line with other studies conducted in Israel which found that Arabs expressed negative attitudes towards socially-challenged individuals more than Jews EIs did (Hazan, 2002). This led to the conclusion that the community and culture to which individuals belong affect their worldview (Maunter, 2008). One of the possible explanations for this finding was connected to the education system in the Arab society which in many cases constitutes part of a patriarchal system (Popper & Gideon, 2010). This approach advocates that educators are authoritative people who reinforce the hierarchical and authoritative nature of the society and the fact that it shows respect for adults. The status of adults as a source of knowledge, wisdom and authority is empowered by pupils' attitude towards educators who are older and particularly intelligent (Al-Hajj, 2003; Suwaed & Nohad, 2016). This social approach dictates an education method which is based on conformism more than on encouragement to independence (Alkrinawi, 2001). The Arab society's support of individuals depends on their obedience to norms, guidelines and family values. Non-conformism on the individuals' part entails sanctions and prevention of familial and social support up to the point of alienation (Reches & Rodnizky, 2009). Features of inmates in juvenile correctional institutions are the reason for bluntly breaching the conformism to which the Arab society aspires.

Perhaps this is why Arab EIs have a more attribution of guilt perception towards the inmates as well as a more power assertion authority-exercising style. Contrary to the hypotheses, Sephardic Jewish EIs who come from a patriarchal-collectivist culture too, are more similar in their inmates' perception and the authority-exercising styles to Ashkenazi Jewish EIs who come from an individualistic-western culture as well as to mixed-ethnicity Jewish EIs. This might be due to the assimilation of Jews of Sephardic origin into the western culture which is dominant in Israel among most of the citizens. According to this culture, individuals are autonomous and separated from the group and they can simultaneously belong to several groups, facilitating the acceptance of different and socially-challenged people (Perry, 2007). This explanation is in line with the study of Hong, Martinez, Chiu and Morris (2003) which shows that attributing guilt to people in various situations might be affected by two different cultures to which people have been exposed. The researchers indicate that acquaintance with the other culture and identification with it can have an impact and most individuals are inclined to adopt its attribution of guilt even when it differs from the attribution of their culture of origin. Similar findings were shown by Sherazi and Biel (2005).

With regards to gender differentiation between the EIs, the findings showed, in accordance with the hypotheses, a difference in their authority-exercising styles between male and female EIs. Male EIs respond more with a withdrawal style and less with induction style during disciplinary encounters as compared to female EIs. This finding supports findings of other studies of gender which show that women are more verbal than men and that they have better social skills than men (Baron-Cohen, 2003). Perhaps the traditional gender roles account for the fact that male EIs are oriented towards roles which emphasize authority and discipline more than female EIs. There are psychological and sociological theories associated with the role of fathers and mothers in children's upbringing and shaping their behavior. According to these theories, male EIs, unlike female EIs, believe it is important to maintain and preserve tasks of exercising control, maintaining order, setting boundaries and discipline which are dominant in the authority component. This exposes the male EIs more to disciplinary events and power assertion style of which withdrawal is one of its expressions (Reuven, 2014).

Conversely, female EIs seem more oriented towards the therapeutic parts of their role. They tend to integrate in their role elements from the practice of psychologists and social workers with reference to individuals and to the conflict points between individuals and the group as well as elements from the work of teachers in education and leisure activities. To these they add everything connected with physical therapy, control over children's life and various acts of coordination involved as well as fulfilling some of the parental therapy functions. Tasks increase empathy and consequently the power assertion response is decreased (Reuven & Linkovsky, 2015).

On the other hand, and contrary to the hypotheses, no gender differences were found in the four components of the inmates' perception. These findings are not in line with findings of other studies whereby women have an accepting attitude towards socially-challenged individuals more than men, related both to physical and mental


143

disabilities (Royal & Roberts, 1987). This finding is of great interest and it might be attributed to the revolution in gender identity which is transpiring in the present era. Based on this argument, women turn more similar to men, among others by becoming less people-oriented in their attitudes towards socially-challenged individuals and more judgmental and stigmatized in their opinions (Suwaed, 2016). Nevertheless, this is still a transition period and therefore women embody features which characterize both genders. Moreover, these findings might be attributed also to ambivalence in the inmates' perception which according to this study illustrate that discipline is more enhanced in the cultural context and less in the gender context.

This study has several methodological limitations. First, the study related only to two variances and there might be additional variances which might affect an attribution of guilt in the inmates' perception as well as the authority-exercising style. Moreover, itis grounded in self-reporting of the EIs. Consequently, it is likely to assume that the study is imbued with social desirability, mainly in the authority-exercising style questionnaire. However, the findings illustrate a significant and strong positive correlation between the EIs' answers and the administrators/coordinators' assessment. In addition, when examining the relations between the components of the authority-exercising styles, a significant positive correlation was found between power assertion and withdrawal and a significant negative correlation between power assertion and withdrawal and between inductions. These findings are in line with the theory and the findings of previous studies (Barber, Bolitho &Bertrand, 2001; Hoffman, 1975; Ritchie & Ritchie, 1983). Thus, these findings support the validity of the authority-exercising style questionnaire. This study sheds light on the world of educational instructors in juvenile correctional institutions, focusing only on their cultural features. In order to enhance the knowledge and understanding of the investigated topic, research of this field should be extended, examining the EIs' behavior also through observations. Furthermore, the possible effect of additional variances can be investigated, i.e. variances related to the work environment – organizational culture and educational-therapeutic climate in the institution, type of institutions per their legal distinction (locked, closed, open) and inmates' characteristics (institutions for boys, institutions for girls and co-ed institutions). Moreover, one can conduct a study of the EIs' personal variances which might impact coping styles in stress situations. For example, experience at work, higher education and tutoring in the field, level of emotional intelligence and empathetic ability. An in-depth understanding of this issue could facilitate the development of teams and intervention programmers for a particularly challenging adolescent population that are delinquent and are in a situation of social deviation. References Al-Haj, M. (2003). Rav-tarbutiyutve'hinucharavib'Yisrael (Multi-culturalism and Arab education in Israel). In M.

Al-Haj, and A. Ben Eliezer (Eds.), Beshemhabitachon: sotziologiashel shalom umilchamabeisraelbeidanmishtaneh (pp. 295-327). Haifa: Haifa University Press.

Alkrinawi, A. (2001). Social work in the Bedouin society in the Negev: Inter-cultural aspects. Encounter of social-educational work,15, 20-31.[Hebrew]

Barber, G. J., Bolitho, F., &Bartrand, L.(2001). Parent Child Synchrony and AdolescentAdjustment . Child and Adolescent Social WorkJournal. 18(1) 51-64.

Baron-Cohen, S. (2003). The Essential Difference: The Truth Aboutthe Mail and FemaleBrain. New York: Basic Books.

Ben-Baruch, S., Sinai, H., &Sheinfeld, A. (2015). Between punishment and rehabilitation: Approaches and changing considerations regarding juvenile delinquents in law and legal procedures in Israel and around the world. In: A. Timor, S. Ben-Baruch, & A. Elisha (Eds.), Youth in chaos – delinquent minors in Israel: Methods of prevention, enforcement and rehabilitation (pp. 67-85). Jerusalem: Magness Publishing.[Hebrew]

Block, J. H. (1975). The child rearing practices report (CRPR): A set of Q items for the description of parental socialization attitudes and values. Monograph of the Institute of Human Development,University of California, Berkeley.

Cohen, Y., & Sneider, S. (1992). Coaching instructors in a therapeutic live-in facility as a means of consolidating their self. Society and Welfare, 12, 207-313. [Hebrew]


144

De Valk, S., Van der Helm, G. H. P., Beld, M., Schaftenaar, P., Kuiper, C., &Stams, G. J. J. M. (2015). Does punishment in secure residential youth care work? An overview of the evidence. Journal of Children’s Services, 10(1), 3-16. doi: 10.1108/JCS-11-2014-0048

Dirkzwager, A. J., &Kruttschnitt, C. (2012). Prisoners’ perceptions of correctional officers’ behavior in English and Dutch prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(5), 404-412. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.06.004

Goldstein,S.,&Laor,R.(2007).Hebetimbein tarbutiimbechovatdivuachve’zihuyyeladimtachathitalelutve’haznacha (Intercultural aspects in reporting duty and identifying abused and neglected children.In D. Horowitz, H. Ben Yehuda, & M. Hovav (Eds.),Korbanotshelyeladimbeisraelhasovlimmehitalelutvehaznacha – hanifgaim, achifathahok, hamishpat, refua, hinuchurevacha(pp.781-812).Jerusalem: Ashalim Press.

Gotessman, M. (1980). Professionalization of instruction in youth villages in Israel. In S. Adiel (Ed.),Youth in distress and education in a live-in facility. Tel Aviv: Gomeh Publishing.[Hebrew]

Grupper, O., &Eisikovits, R. (2003). Ovdeinoarhazkukimlemorotoryum. (Youth workers in need of a moratorium: Investigating the professional development needs of new instructors in live-in facilities. In M. Arieli (Ed.), Live-in facilities: their staff and communities. (6-56). Tel-Aviv: Massada Press.

Gur, A. (2008). Hagishahakomunikativitb'tipulmossadishelnoarb'metzuka (The communicative approach in institutional treatment of youth in distress). Mifgashla'avodahsotzialit-hinuchit, 21, 11-39.

Hazan, M. (2002). Emdotklapeynechutfizitv'nafshitkefunktziashelramathasamchutaniyutshelhamadrich (Attitudes towards physical and mental handicap as a function of the assessor/diagnostician's level of authoritarianism). M.A. Thesis. Department of Psychology.Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University.

Hoffman, M. (1975). Moral internalization, parental power and the nature of parent child interaction. Developmental Psychology, 11, 228-249.

Hong, Y.Y., Martinez, V.B.,Chui, C.Y.,& Morris M.W. (2003).Boundaries of cultural influence: Construct activation as mechanism for cultural differences in social perception. Journal ofCross Cultural Psychology, 34(4), 453-464.

Izikovich, Z. (1980). Parents' disciplinary methods. In T. Arad (Ed.),Use of disciplinary techniques and level of moral development of delinquents as compared to non-delinquent. Haifa: Haifa University, Department of Social Workpublications.[Hebrew]

Kagitcibasi, C.(1996). Family and Human Development Across Cultures: A View from the Other Side. Mahwah , NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kalderon, N. (2002). Pluralism negedretzonam – Al hapluralismhatarbutishelYisraelim (Pluralism against their will – On the cultural pluralism of Israelis). Haifa: Zmora-Bitan Publishers.

Kohout, H. (1971). The Analysis of the Self. New York: International Universities Press. Korbin,J.E.(1991). Cross- cultural Perspectives andResearchDirection for the 21stCentury. Child Abuse and

Neglect, 15, 67-77. Leshem, A. (2004). Israel as a multi-cultural country on the verge of the 21st century. In A. Leshem, and D. Roar-Strier (Eds.),Anthology of articles: social differentiation as a challenge for

human services (pp. 15-35). Jerusalem: Magness Publications.[Hebrew] Levy, I (2007). Cognitive mechanism of blaming the victim and the bystander. [Mechanism cognitivyshel

hahashamat hakurban vehazofe] Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel. Levy, I., & Reuven, Y. (.2016). Educational instructors' attitudes toward juvenile inmates: The effect of inmate's

role in criminal event and instructors' belief in a just world. International Journal of Offender Therapy&Comparative Criminology.

Loseke, D. (1993) Constructing conditions, people, morality and emotion. Expending the agenda of constructionism. In G. Mille., & J. Holstein, (Eds.),Constructionist controversies: Issues in social problems theory. (pp. 207-216). New York:DegruyderPublishers.

Masses, M. (1995). Tovathayeled – al bechiraerkitvetafkideyhamumche (Good of the child – On value-based choices and roles of the expert).HevraUrevacha, 15, 415-429.

Maunter, M. (2008). Tzedekvetarbutbetchilathamea ha 21 (Law and culture at the beginning of the 21st century). Tel Aviv: Am Oved Publishing House.

Mevorach, G. (2015). Representation of minors in criminal procedures. In: A. Timor, S. Ben-Baruch, & A. Elisha (Eds.), Youth in chaos – delinquent minors in Israel: Methods of prevention, enforcement and rehabilitation (pp. 67-85). Jerusalem: Magness Publishing.[Hebrew]

Moss, R.A. (1990). Theories about adolescence. Tel Aviv: New Printing House.[Hebrew]


145

Perry, P. (2007). Education in a multi-cultural society. Jerusalem: Carmel Publishers. [Hebrew] Pinsof, M. W. (2002). The death of the "Till Death us do part": The transformation of pairbonding in the 20th

century. Family Process. 41, 135-157. Popper-Givon, A. (2010). Traditional clinics, higher education, pain and autonomy, coping methods of Palestinian

women in Israel. Social Issues in Israel, 9, 124-152.[Hebrew] Reches, A., &Rodnitzky, A. (2009), Arab society in Israel – Information Folder. The Abraham Fund Initiatives

Publishing.[Hebrew] Reuven, Y. (2015). Tipulmossadikofeh b'mitbagrim ovrey hoku'b'matzaveystiyachevratit. (Enforced institutional

treatment of juvenile delinquents and socially deviant youth).In: U. Timor, S. Ben-Baruch, & E. Elisha (Eds.), Noarb'balagan – Ketinim ovary chokb'Yisrael: darcheymeniya, achifaveshikum.(pp. 102-125).Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University.

Reuven,Y.&Linkovski,A.(2015) Havnayattfisathaitarvootshelha’sherutle’shikumnoarbe’tahalichshellemidamehatzlahot – mehkarmeazev (Construction of the intervention concept of the service of Youth Rehabilitation in the process of learning from success. in: U. Timor, S. Ben Baruch,&E. Elisha. (Eds.),Noarbe’balagan – ktinimovreihokbe’israel: darkeimenia, achifave’shikum. (Youth in chaos: Juvenile delinquents: methods of prevention, enforcement, and rehabilitation), (pp. 125-152). Jerusalem: Magnes press, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Ritchie, J., & Ritchie, J. (1983). New Zealand: Developmental and Social antecedents andconcomitants of aggression. In A. P. Goldstein., & M. H. Segall (Eds.),Aggression in global perspective. (pp.325-347). New York: Pergamon Press.

Roar-Strier, D., &Leshem, A. (2004). Diferentziatziatarbutitk'etgarlesheruteyenosh (Cultural differentiation as a challenge for human services). Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Roar-Strier, D., & Rosenthal, M. (2004). Hevrotb'yisrael: tahalicheyshinuiveshimurbematrotgidulyeladim (Societies in Israel: Processes of change andpreservation in child-raising goals). Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Royal, G. P., & Roberts, M. C. (1987). Students perceptions of and attitudes toward disabilities: A comparison of Twenty conditions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 16, 122-132. Samslik, A.,Smadja, N., &Moyal, H. (2007). Hamassa

lehaganathanoar.Tfissatha'hitarvutshelharashutlehaganathanoar (The long road to youth protection. The Youth Protection Authority's concept of intervention). Jerusalem: Einav Press.

Shalom, H. (1980). Tfissathatafkidshelhamadrichba'pnimiya (Perception of instructors' role in a live-in facility). In S. Adiel (Ed.), Tipuachnoarbemetzukavehinuchbapnimiya (pp. 92-111). Tel Aviv: GomehPublishing House.

Sherazi., R., &Biel,A.(2005). Internal – external causal attributions and Perceived government responsibility for need provision. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, .36. 96-116.

Shilansky, S. 1992. Instruction in youth village as a profession. In: M. Arieli (Ed). Live-in facilities: their staff and communities (pp. 63-72). Tel-Aviv: Tel Aviv University, School of Education and Massada Publishing House.[Hebrew]

Shiran, N. (2007). Zihuy mifgasheymishmaat, kvutzatamitimv'avaryaneinoar (Identification. disciplinary encounters, peer group and juvenile delinquents). Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Criminology. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University.[Hebrew]

Shoham, S., Rahav, G., & Adar, M. (2004). Criminology. Jerusalem: Shoken Publishing.[Hebrew] Smooha , S . (1993) . Class, Ethnic, and NationalCleavages andDemocracy in Israel. In Larry Diamond and Ehud

Sprinzak(Eds.),Israeli Democracy Under Stress.Boulder, CO: Lynn Rinner Publishers. Suwaed, M. (2016). Women's Writing and Writing on Women: Women and Gender in the Middle East. New-

York: Edwin Mellen Press. 300 pp. Suwaed, M.,&Nohad, A. (2016). Education, Identity and Ideology: Islamic movement and the religious- Islamic

education in Israel. Social Identities Journal. DOI:10.1080/13504630.2015.1128811. SJR h Index: 19 Sociology and Political Science: Q3 Scholar h5-index=14.

Thornton, B. Hogate, L., Morris, K., Pinnete, M., &Presby, W. (1986). Psychological evidence of an arousal-based motivational bias in the defensive attribution of responsibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 148-162.

Trowell, J., &Etchegoyen, A. (2002). The Importance of Fathers. London: The new library ofpsychoanalysis.


146

Weiner, B. (1995). Judgment ofRespnsibilty. A Foundation for a theory of Social Conduct. New York: The GulfordPress.

Winnicot, D.W. (1995). Hakolmatchilbabayit. Massotme'etpsichoanalitikai (Everything begins at home. Essays by a psychoanalyst). Tel Aviv: Dvir Publishers.

Yatziv, D. (1999). Hahevrahasektorialit (The sectoral society). Jerusalem: Bialik Institute Publications. Yonah, Y. (2005). Ravtarbutiyut mahi? Al politikashelha'shonutbe'Yisrael. (What is multiculturalism? On the

politics of diversity in Israel). Jerusalem. Babel Publications. Yonah, Y., &Shenhav, M (2005). Mahuthapluralismhatarbuti. Al politikasheldiferentziab'Yisrael (The essence of

cultural pluralism. On the politics of differentiation in Israel).Jerusalem: Babel Publishers.

ethnicity, gender differences and authority-exercising ... · journal of education & social...

Documents